I do not believe that the problem with Politicians is the fact that they do not pass laws for the benefit of the people. At least, not all of them, that is... If you're rich, or make them a lot of money somehow it's different. Most laws are only to support the system that they have set up. Take Marijuana for example. It's most definitely not nearly as damaging as cigarettes or alcohol, yet it is still illegal. Reasons being, they can't make money off it being legal, at least not nearly as much as when it's illegal. Think about it: How much money goes into the justice system when a person gets caught with a little bit of weed? Upwards to a grand in most cases, for the first offense! They could never make up for that if they made it legal.... When someone gets busted for drunk driving, how much do they end up paying? Ridiculous costs add up, from initial fines, to getting the license back. It's all money- If they started making laws for the betterment of mankind, things might be different. But as long as the government is kissing the asses of big corporations, things will never change.

Once again, Sue hits the nail right on the head...

Dang, my apologies moderators... Type was flowing out of me, I cursed there at the end. Won't happen again:-)

"...How much money goes into the justice system when a person gets caught with a little bit of weed? Upwards to a grand in most cases, for the first offense!..."

I suspect that if you figure in the arresting officers time, the court officers time, the various folks in the DA's office time, the judge/court reporter/bailiff/various clerks time, "upwards of a grand" won't come close to covering it. The justice system does not make money, period...

True enough- however the system is sustained AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE by strategically making certain things illegal, regardless of moralities, or what's "better" for people in general.... And lets not forget that the people that are employed to handle these things deal with more than one case at a time....

But you miss my point.

A predator, be they psychopathic or simply a big griz, will not likely prey on other predators that have a good or better chance of eating them instead.

Given the choice, I am sure most psycho-sociopaths would prefer not to tangle with those perhaps seeming more depraved than themselves, unless they have a truly self-destructive desire, which seems counter-productive.

That is the image, however subtle, I intend to convey. When considering me as a target I would prefer they consider that I might enjoy doing to them a bit more than they might to me, and maybe with a bit more facility than they have.


Law enforcement is not the deterrent I had in mind. It's not about steps or getting caught, it is about conveying the perception that they are about to enter a trap, a lot more trouble than it'd be worth to pursue.

You've got an interesting point benjammin. I hope you never have to convince a psychopath that you're a bigger predator...;^)

John E

Or a bigger psychopath that you're a predator.

There are lots of killers who haven't been caught. If they don't have a pattern, their murders may not even have been linked.

In addition, I think many criminals are stupid. Often they are criminal because they are stupid. Hannibal Lecture types are rare, except in fiction.

Whenever I've gone down that path, I've concluded that the only real foolproof plan is not to commit the crime.

I think the trend is in the opposite direction. Most societies figure out that there is less violent crime, and fewer long-running violent family feuds, if disputes are mediated by an impartial law instead of personal retribution.

This is currently reversing in the UK. Lots of teenagers are scared of knife crime, so they carry knives themselves, and that leads to more knife crime. Minor disputes get out of hand, and what would have been a fist-fight with no long-term harm because a knife-fight with victims maimed for life. The publicity from such events creates more fear, creating a vicious cycle. It's escalated over the last 5 or 10 years. Thankfully in the UK guns are still rare and hard to get hold of (compared to knives) so it can't escalate in that direction.

Your example does tend to prove a point, that being that even when a certain class of weapons are prohibited, people will still seek out some sort of advantage by arming themselves with whatever is available and proven effective rather than do without. The Brits may very well be once again reduced to sticks and stones, but they will always resort to possessing something more than fists and feet, until that is all they have left.

But more to the point, I don't think anyone can rationally argue that self-defense is akin to retribution. Pre-empting or at least preventing criminal activity by the use, or even implied use, of force is not the same as hunting down an enemy with intent. Likewise, I'd say you would be hard put to find evidence supporting the argument that violent crime is abated simply by restricting access to certain classes of weapons. In fact, here in the US, we have a rather robust body of evidence that would lead one to conclude just the opposite is true. There may be cases where violent crime diminished in a given geographic or social area, but I think the true incentive fomenting such a reduction would likely be the result of other factors, with restrictions on weapons possession being more of a consequence than a cause.

From a survival perspective, I would say it only makes good sense, then, to be properly equipped with a suitable means of defending yourself, or at least being able to reliably sell prospective opponents that such is likely the case.

On your other points, I will agree for the most part. However, it seems many more criminals than you might expect encounter what I can only conclude is a Karmic calibrating event having virtually nothing to do with their apparent intelligence, or lack there of, thus supporting the contrapositive argument to an old cliche, wherein it may be better to be below average than unfortunate!!!